The New York Times admits that it delayed the domestic spying story before the presidential election, a boost to the Bush administration.
But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election.
Hmmm. Based on the polls after the story finally broke, do you think the story coming out earlier would have helped the President or hurt the President vs. John Kerry?
(I know- you’ll have to step out of spin mode for a second here, Big-O.)
You mean the same polls that had Bush at 40% approval? Yeah, I think that it would be bad for Bush – especially with a more oppositional DNC than earlier this year. (Do you ever get tired of using the word “spin” without any context, as if the word repeated endlessly can convey something)
C’mon Oliver- you write like a campaign commercial- on purpose. I’m just acknowledging your abilities.
And I’m talking about the polls that said American were much more supportive of the NSA program and that the debate against Kerry on the subject would have been a loser for the Senator.
In that droning voice- “George W. Bush is not doing enough to protect the American people. I can do better.”
(Next day) “George W. Bush is overstepping his bounds in trying to protect the American people. I can do it better.”
It would have been priceless John Kerry theater.
If you say so… The polls were at best split on domestic spying, and negative towards Bush once you make clear that it was done without an easily obtained warrant. I also feel the issue could have been even better used by a campaign staff at full speed than the relatively laconic DNC pr crew currently in power.
And are you typing with a straight face as you assert that a candidate in a campaign shouldn’t contrast himself with the incumbent? I’ll take the humorless, droning voice with a clue over the charming and incompetent Texan any day.
Which doesn’t change the heart of the matter, that being that the Times delayed the story for political considerations.
Right- political considerations and not national security considerations. He should be fired.
But if you ask Keller- he didn’t want to help the President.
(Next day) “George W. Bush is overstepping his bounds in trying to protect the American people. I can do it better.”
1. You say that like there’s no middle ground.
2. What he probably would’ve (or at least should’ve) said is:
“Bush is attacking the civil liberties of ordinary U.S. citizens in the name of security.”
And are you typing with a straight face as you assert that a candidate in a campaign shouldn’t contrast himself with the incumbent? I’ll take the humorless, droning voice with a clue over the charming and incompetent Texan any day.
Since when was Bush “charming”? The guy never even learned proper table manners.
Right- political considerations and not national security considerations. He should be fired.
Sure. Go ahead and keep underestimating those that wish to harm us. THAT will certainly help the WoT